Am I the only one who sees this here on so many post and responses? You don't believe me? Read thru the comments on Russert's death and the coverage (especially, "Wall to Wall Russert on Morning Shows" and Tim Russert's Testimony Sent Scooter Libby To Jail) to see what kind of ad hominens and illogicals there are.

Appalling.

Oh, if only Hanson would respond to some of the poster's on FR and there were more who respond as does he.

I guess I would rather see the ad honmine attacks then read the hypocritical, hysteric hype about a guy who's whole career will be nothing but a minor footnote in history

Russert death is a prime example of everything wrong with American Political media. The American political media tends to defies and exaggerates the importance of minor insignificant bit players and results in a “journalistic” community that confuses its own ego for the story.

Russert’s death is no more significant or important then the 10s of thousands of other people who died that day.

3
posted on 06/16/2008 6:13:51 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(http://www.iraqvetsforcongress.com ---- Get involved, make a difference.)

Russert death is a prime example of everything wrong with American Political media. The American political media tends to defies and exaggerates the importance of minor insignificant bit players and results in a journalistic community that confuses its own ego for the story.

Russert death is a prime example of everything wrong with American Political media. The American political media tends to defies and exaggerates the importance of minor insignificant bit players and results in a journalistic community that confuses its own ego for the story.

Russerts death is no more significant or important then the 10s of thousands of other people who died that day.””

I was thinking the same thing about the obituaries I read in the local small town paper this weekend — these were about people no less significant than a shyster lawyer passing as an “unbiased” political hack.

It also belies this preposterous myth that the actors on Big Media are competitors. Schieffer said an, unintentionally, funny thing. He said how much he loved to scoop Russert because he was the best then told us that he shared a box with him at the Senator's stadium. They are not competitors, they are collaborators. They all spout exactly the same nonsense at the same times.

I noticed you have a habit of attacking your fellow FReepers en mass. The last one I recall was your bemoaning “15 posts and no prayers” when a plane crashed in Sudan. Since your habit is to be critical of others, I'd like to know what's up with that?

14
posted on 06/16/2008 6:54:15 AM PDT
by Berlin_Freeper
(Vote For McCain But Trust In The Lord.)

I used to enjoy reading Mr. B, until he turned into an apologist for the Nazi’s as a way to combat the left.

What he still fails to understand is that the left (communists) and the Nazi’s are essentially the same thing. Two methods of taking power away from individuals and ruling the masses. They say they are diametrically opposed to each other but they are like two trains on the same circular track, one following the other, trying to reach the same station.

17
posted on 06/16/2008 6:59:08 AM PDT
by Mr. Jazzy
(The United States Marines. The finest and most feared fighting force in the history of mankind.)

Hate to rain on the parade, and NO, I'm not defending Buchanan. BUT, when VDH says Britain went to war with Germany because Germany had systematically violated Versailles, etc, he's wrong.

The British went to war over Poland. They had guaranteed Poland's independence against any [read German] aggression. If one reads the history, you will note Britain gave Germany something like 12 hours to cease military operations and withdraw from Poland, after which time, if Germany did not, a state of war would exist between the two countries. Poland was the casus belli.

20
posted on 06/16/2008 7:15:45 AM PDT
by PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)

One of the great things about Rush is that he is civil 97.9% of the time. Is that not a path to success?

Following that, would you deny that a lot of the posts on the “Wall to Wall Russert on Morning Shows” and “Tim Russert’s Testimony Sent Scooter Libby To Jail” were ad hominem attacks and illogical arguments? Not all, but there sure were a lot.

I don’t “make it a habit” but standing by while people take this forum and use Kos-ite/DU- style attacks tends to bother me.

Sarcasm, exaggeration and hyperbole are all common methods of making points but you must agree that to say there is something seemingly pathologically wrong with people when they say in regards to Russerts death (and within hours of the announcement) Didn’t like Russert at all. What’s with FReepers sudden adoration of people like Paul Newman, Tim Russert, even Ted Kennedy in his illness? Sheesh. Conservatives are off their rocker. Or Russert was the master of subtlety when it came to furthering the DNC agenda... and questioning GOP motives. Or, I always thought of him as a typical Drive By Media - DNC mouthpiece. And, my personal favorite: Anyone who watched him knew he was a Leftist propagandist about 90% of the time.

If Im reading this stuff, how wonderful would it be if Obermann, Mathews, Blitzer, Combs and Co. began to read this crap on the air?

BTW: The 15 posts and no prayers was a true observation. It was on of those things that makes me go “Hmmmm?”

Personally, I thought it was a new low to bash people in a tragic thread because no one happened to post your required prayer, especially when people are trying to deal with perhaps the shock of the flaming images they were looking at or simply are not the prayer type person.

I noticed prior to that thread your readiness to criticize other FReepers and when I saw your instinct to attack FReepers for a prayer rather then just post one yourself it became memorable.

That's why now I notice this new en mass attack, using an article about Buchanan and turning it into an attack on FReepers in threads about Russert. Excuse me but that is really bending over backwards to get an attack in, excuse me again... I mean a “true observation”.

Democrats are blue, Republicans are red, you are purple. Do you spend equal time on DU with “true observations” against Democrats? Or did you think you can keep at it and no one here would notice?

24
posted on 06/16/2008 7:53:07 AM PDT
by Berlin_Freeper
(Vote For McCain But Trust In The Lord.)

And, yes, it does indeed serve to lessen the enormous sacrifices that American and British soldiers endured to stop a monstrosity like National Socialism...

Why hasn't Hanson mentioned the enormous sacrifices of the Russians and Soviets of which the American and British losses pale in comparison? This is par for the course in the lexicon of the neocons. You see, the Russkies are on the outs because of their dealings with Iran AND for trying to recover some of their national wealth which was looted by the oligarchs who share, let us say, certain similarities with the founders of the neocon movement.

Why hasn't Hanson mentioned the enormous sacrifices of the Russians and Soviets of which the American and British losses pale in comparison? This is par for the course in the lexicon of the neocons.

Always helps to read something in its entirety before yowling about "neocons":

And while the Soviet government was a vile and evil entity, millions of Red Army soldiers were not communists, but brave patriots who did much to stop the Wehrmacht, and, yes, by their efforts did save allied lives. Again, they fought for a horrendous government, but the motivation for many was not global communism or Comrade Stalin who had butchered millions of their families and friends, but to rid German soldiers from the soil of Mother Russia.

...they are like two trains on the same circular track, one following the other, trying to reach the same station.

I have long argued that Left-Right on a straight line is the wrong way to illustrate or view political ideologies. The diagram should be a circle, which would put totalitarians opposite anarchists, and 'middle of the road" liberals opposite "middle of the road" conservatives.

Imagine the 3 6 9 and 12 spots on a clock.

30
posted on 06/16/2008 8:15:14 AM PDT
by maica
(Peace is the Aftermath of Victory)

Hate to rain on the parade, and NO, I'm not defending Buchanan. BUT, when VDH says Britain went to war with Germany because Germany had systematically violated Versailles, etc, he's wrong.

The British went to war over Poland. They had guaranteed Poland's independence against any [read German] aggression. If one reads the history, you will note Britain gave Germany something like 12 hours to cease military operations and withdraw from Poland, after which time, if Germany did not, a state of war would exist between the two countries. Poland was the casus belli.

Umm... no.

VDH is right and you missed the point. Why did Britain take the step of assuring Poland its independence? Precisely because of Germany's systematic violations of Versailles. Poland is where Britain drew the line in the sand "so to speak".

Had Germany not violated the treaty, Britain would not have felt the need to make that guarantee. As for Russia's participation, it was simply following Germany's lead and would not, at that time, have considered invading Poland independently.

Point, VDH.

36
posted on 06/16/2008 8:29:40 AM PDT
by PsyOp
(Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)

I didn’t miss the point. VDH’s ASSUMPTION is probably correct. But the FACT is the British gave as their SOLE reason for going to war the German invasion of Poland. And if Hanson can [rightly] challenge Buchanan’s factual errors [as well as Buchanan’s asuumptions], I can feel free to point out his.

37
posted on 06/16/2008 8:37:51 AM PDT
by PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)

Why hasnt Hanson mentioned the enormous sacrifices of the Russians and Soviets of which the American and British losses pale in comparison?

Well, when one considers that Stalin is largely responsible for allowing the Germans to rearm and train its armies in secret during the inter-war period; his participation in the dismemberment of Poland; and his imposition of totalitarian rule on the territories "liberated" from the Nazis later on... its hard to have much sympathy...

The Russian people made great sacrifices as a direct result of the misguided policies of its own government. Before, during and after. Hoisted by their own petard, as it were.

38
posted on 06/16/2008 8:41:02 AM PDT
by PsyOp
(Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)

I didnt miss the point. VDHs ASSUMPTION is probably correct. But the FACT is the British gave as their SOLE reason for going to war the German invasion of Poland. And if Hanson can [rightly] challenge Buchanans factual errors [as well as Buchanans asuumptions], I can feel free to point out his.

That would be because the invasion was the triggering event. And if you had been alive and paying attention in 1939, no one would have had to explain this to you because it would have been taken for granted as common knowledge.

Again... I the reason for the treaty with Poland was to end the German violations of the treaty of Versailles (a fact that was understood by people at that time). It was thought that such a declaration would bring the Germans up short and stop further aggression and violations of the treaty. It did not, because it was too little, too late.

And while I am sure you are very competent on WWII as relates to battles and such, you seem to know nothing of the inter-war politics that led up to the war other than the basic superficial stuff they teach in school. The invasion of Poland was the only public reason uttered, because it was the last and final event in a long train of events.

So, yes, you did miss the point.

43
posted on 06/16/2008 8:55:47 AM PDT
by PsyOp
(Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)

Buchanan, Hitler and Napoleon have one thing in common—malignant narcissism. This occurs when a generally nice person focuses on obtaining approval from the crowd. Once he or she receives this, this crowd approval is used as proof positive of the narcissists value.

Done over and over in an ever increasing crescendo leads to Napoleon losing a whole army in Russia and, then, Hitler doing the same. As for Pat, he is playing “what if” games to his liking that make Pat look super smart. Hopefully, no one will do so. If not, Buchanan will go on to rewrite all of human history to his liking.

By the way, if Adam didn't delve and Eve Twain, then there would be no history.

Second, Buchanan unfortunately is neither a reliable journalist nor an historian, and thus simply cannot be trusted to report accurately what is written.

I agree with this assessment. But the problem is that there are so few talking heads on television that get the illegal invasion of this country. Buchanan must be given his due, he got the illegal invasion from the get-go. Fox is trotting out talking heads claiming to be conservatives who are clueless about the illegal invasion, and who are probably by orders of Rupert downplaying the illegal invasion. I understand what Buchanan does not get, but I also appreciate what he does get, what he does get is more than most claiming to be conservatives on the putrid medium known as cable news.

Communication from the German Government to the British Government, Handed by Joachim von Ribbentrop, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the British Ambassador (Sir Neville Henderson) at 11:20 A.M., September 3, 1939

"The German Government have received the British Government's ultimatum of the 3rd September, 1939. They have the honour to reply as follows: -

"1. The German Government and the German people refuse to receive, accept, let alone to fulfill, demands in the nature of ultimata made by the British Government.

"2. On our eastern frontier there has for many months already reigned a condition of war. Since the time when the Versailles Treaty first tore Germany to pieces, all and every peaceful settlement was refused to all German Governments. The National Socialist Government also has since the year 1933 tried again and again to remove by peaceful negotiations the worst rapes and breaches of justice of this treaty. The British Government have been among those who, by their intransigent attitude, took the chief part in frustrating every practical revision. Without the intervention of the British Government - of this the German Government and German people are fully conscious - a reasonable solution doing justice to both sides would certainly have been found between Germany and Poland. For Germany did not have the intention nor had she raised the demands of annihilating Poland. The Reich demanded only the revision of those articles of the Versailles Treaty which already at the time of the formulation of that Dictate had been described by understanding statesmen of all nations as being in the long run unbearable, and therefore impossible for a great nation and also for the entire political and economic interests of Eastern Europe. British statesmen, too, declared the solution in the East which was then forced upon Germany as containing the germ of future wars. To remove this danger was the desire of all German Governments and especially the intention of the new National Socialist People's Government. The blame for having prevented this peaceful revision lies with the British Cabinet policy."

Thought you might be interested in reading this. No doubt this is one of the documents referred to by Buchannan in his book. What you should note, however, is the references to the treaty of Versailles. Even the Germans understood the reason for the British-French-Polish treaty.

47
posted on 06/16/2008 9:08:50 AM PDT
by PsyOp
(Truth in itself is rarely sufficient to make men act. - Clauswitz, On War, 1832.)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.